> I can not comment on "most vendors" but for the PROGRESS RDBMS RAID5 > is definitely not recommended. It will work but you will see a > significant reduction in performance. We strongly recommend that our > clients go with RAID10 (as in RAID 1+0). In-house we only use RAID10. +1 Write performance of RAID5 on hardware MegaRAID SATA 150-6D is *very* poor. -- Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
RE: Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CentOS mailing list <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- From: Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 22:29:52 +0300
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <FEECLNJFCJEDIILHOMNOMEBDEFAD.hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <FEECLNJFCJEDIILHOMNOMEBDEFAD.hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- From: Christopher Chan
- Re: Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- References:
- RE: Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- From: Hugh E Cruickshank
- RE: Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- Prev by Date: RE: how to debug ssh slow connection issues.
- Next by Date: How is this possible?
- Previous by thread: RE: Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- Next by thread: Re: Re: RAID5 or RAID50 for database?
- Index(es):
 |